Myths about Economic Conservatism
Beingism is a new, liberalish philosophy that describes itself as wanting changes that would be "consistent with some form of Libertarian Socialism".
The title strikes me as misleading: it would be more accurate to describe it as "44 Myths Spread By Economic Conservatives". It's long, and many of the points are compatible with my own criticisms in Critiques Of Libertarianism and those of the late Steve Kangas in Liberalism Resurgent.
Most of the myths are also discussed as inline YouTube videos.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Rand Paul humor
Rand Paul to Demonstrate Commitment to Ayn Rand Philosophy By Removing Under-Performing Parts of His Own Body
The title says it all. Hat tip to an email contributor. (I have to be careful about naming some contributors because they are concerned about conservative bosses. If you would like to be creditied, please let me know: I want to err on the side of caution.)
The title says it all. Hat tip to an email contributor. (I have to be careful about naming some contributors because they are concerned about conservative bosses. If you would like to be creditied, please let me know: I want to err on the side of caution.)
Monday, April 04, 2011
Non-Libertarian FAQ: the Belorussian translation!
Every now and then I get a request if somebody may translate my FAQ into another language. There should be a Chinese version out there somewhere, though nobody has told me where.
Bohdan Zograf has now translated The Non-Libertarian FAQ into Belorussian. Do alert all your Belorussian-speaking friends.
According to wikipedia, the Belorussian language is spoken by 4 to 9 million people.
Update 9/26: it's a scam, using Google Translate to fake human translation. I've removed the links that were the apparent objective of the scam.
Bohdan Zograf has now translated The Non-Libertarian FAQ into Belorussian. Do alert all your Belorussian-speaking friends.
According to wikipedia, the Belorussian language is spoken by 4 to 9 million people.
Update 9/26: it's a scam, using Google Translate to fake human translation. I've removed the links that were the apparent objective of the scam.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Open thread.
A large number of other blogs use open threads, so perhaps I should try one.
Bring up your own points, ask questions, propose discussion threads, lurkers make yourselves known, etc.
Bring up your own points, ask questions, propose discussion threads, lurkers make yourselves known, etc.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Good economics from India
Good economics from India
From Angus Sibley at www.equilibrium-economicum.net.
Sibley provides a brief summation of why Amartya Sen rejects market fundamentalism in favor of his Capabilities Approach. Market fundamentalism might be good if all we wanted to do is maximize total wealth. Instead, he proposes maximizing human wellbeing, a radically different goal that takes into account positive freedoms.
The Capabilities Approach can in some ways be viewed a an extended reformulation of modern liberalism, and it is perhaps the most important political/philosophical development of the 20th century. Martha Nussbaum has a new book out describing it, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Capabilities is a good way to make sure that everybody benefits from society. The book is not the best read you'll encounter, but the ideas are great.
From Angus Sibley at www.equilibrium-economicum.net.
Sibley provides a brief summation of why Amartya Sen rejects market fundamentalism in favor of his Capabilities Approach. Market fundamentalism might be good if all we wanted to do is maximize total wealth. Instead, he proposes maximizing human wellbeing, a radically different goal that takes into account positive freedoms.
The Capabilities Approach can in some ways be viewed a an extended reformulation of modern liberalism, and it is perhaps the most important political/philosophical development of the 20th century. Martha Nussbaum has a new book out describing it, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Capabilities is a good way to make sure that everybody benefits from society. The book is not the best read you'll encounter, but the ideas are great.
Encyclopedia Dramatica on libertarianism
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Libertarian
A lengthy, humorous take on libertarianism from many angles, and well worth chortling over.
A lengthy, humorous take on libertarianism from many angles, and well worth chortling over.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
FDR and unions.
Assorted right wingers and libertarians are claiming justification for Wisconsin union bashing in a quotation from FDR:
"... the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."
Our course, this is a quotation out of context. Look in the original letter.
FDR affirms the place of unions in government as well as private industry. He is cautioning against strikes by government employee unions as a tool of collective bargaining the way they are used in bargaining with private industry. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. He argues that the special purposes of government make them inappropriate. He points out: It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
This is not in any way like stripping bargaining rights from unions in government. Indeed, many states have laws that forbid government employee unions from striking, yet still have strong unions that are able to negotiate. It would be more just for those laws to balance the loss of rights to strike with limitations of government abuses of that advantage, but that's not the case that I'm aware of.
"... the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."
Our course, this is a quotation out of context. Look in the original letter.
FDR affirms the place of unions in government as well as private industry. He is cautioning against strikes by government employee unions as a tool of collective bargaining the way they are used in bargaining with private industry. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. He argues that the special purposes of government make them inappropriate. He points out: It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
This is not in any way like stripping bargaining rights from unions in government. Indeed, many states have laws that forbid government employee unions from striking, yet still have strong unions that are able to negotiate. It would be more just for those laws to balance the loss of rights to strike with limitations of government abuses of that advantage, but that's not the case that I'm aware of.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Sweatshops
Libertarians are notorious defenders of sweatshops. Kevin Wayne, in a comment, brought up this excellent resource:
A Consensus Statement on Sweatshop Abuse and MIT’s Prospective Actions in Pursuit of International Labor Justice
A Consensus Statement on Sweatshop Abuse and MIT’s Prospective Actions in Pursuit of International Labor Justice
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Wisconsin
Hungarian socialist political economist Karl Polanyi made the antitheical argument to Hayek in the book The Great Transformation. Polanyi wrote that an uncontrolled free market would lead to repressive economic concentration and then to a co-opting of democratic governance that degrades civil rights.
Three generations of human rights
Three generations of human rights
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Why does college cost so much?
At Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen puts up a post titled Why does college cost so much?
This is a common right-wing meme, aimed at generating discontent with the intellectual class and used as an excuse to review all the normal libertarian ways of blaming any problem on government. And you can tell, because Tyler and his claque ignore the obvious facts about the market.
First, we know there is a huge market failure because statistics have always shown that the increases in lifetime earning AFTER a college education more than pays for the costs of the education. In an efficient market, the marginal cost of an extra degree should equal the marginal increase in lifetime earnings. That's why it is efficient for society to pay even for the education of the mentally challenged, if you view the expense of caring for them to be reduced by education. We probably should be spending significantly more on education because ignorance is the costly alternative.
Second, the assaults on the middle class and increased demand for highly educated workers have, if anything, made this market failure even larger by continuing to reward education with increased lifetime earnings.
Third, we expect the price to increase until it reaches what the market can bear. That's why private colleges charge such enormous and increasing tuitions.
Fourth, the education market suffers from other fundamental market failures which keep it dominated by non-profit institutions at almost all levels except nursery schools and trade schools worldwide. We've seen innumerable for-profit educational enterprises attempted and fail. It's not "barriers to entry" worldwide. And it's not "barriers to entry" in the USA: private non-profits are started successfully at all levels all the time. State universities, state colleges, and community colleges have enlarged tremendously.
While I often get something interesting out of Tyler's posts, I think of him as employed to keep feeding a steady stream of libertarian propaganda through his blog. Much of the time, all he has to do is point and his commenters complete the task for him. And that's what we see here.
This is a common right-wing meme, aimed at generating discontent with the intellectual class and used as an excuse to review all the normal libertarian ways of blaming any problem on government. And you can tell, because Tyler and his claque ignore the obvious facts about the market.
First, we know there is a huge market failure because statistics have always shown that the increases in lifetime earning AFTER a college education more than pays for the costs of the education. In an efficient market, the marginal cost of an extra degree should equal the marginal increase in lifetime earnings. That's why it is efficient for society to pay even for the education of the mentally challenged, if you view the expense of caring for them to be reduced by education. We probably should be spending significantly more on education because ignorance is the costly alternative.
Second, the assaults on the middle class and increased demand for highly educated workers have, if anything, made this market failure even larger by continuing to reward education with increased lifetime earnings.
Third, we expect the price to increase until it reaches what the market can bear. That's why private colleges charge such enormous and increasing tuitions.
Fourth, the education market suffers from other fundamental market failures which keep it dominated by non-profit institutions at almost all levels except nursery schools and trade schools worldwide. We've seen innumerable for-profit educational enterprises attempted and fail. It's not "barriers to entry" worldwide. And it's not "barriers to entry" in the USA: private non-profits are started successfully at all levels all the time. State universities, state colleges, and community colleges have enlarged tremendously.
While I often get something interesting out of Tyler's posts, I think of him as employed to keep feeding a steady stream of libertarian propaganda through his blog. Much of the time, all he has to do is point and his commenters complete the task for him. And that's what we see here.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Ron Paul Versus the Kochtopus.
Monetary Policy Hearing Today, or: Ron Paul Versus the Kochtopus.
From Rortybomb, a brief glimpse into the Rothbardian faction's (paleolibertarians such as Rothbard, Mises, Rockwell, Paul) view of the Kock brothers' faction.
From Rortybomb, a brief glimpse into the Rothbardian faction's (paleolibertarians such as Rothbard, Mises, Rockwell, Paul) view of the Kock brothers' faction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
